Lexplug logoLexplug

Davis v. Costa-Gavras

District Court, S.D. New York
654 F. Supp. 653 (1987)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

For a public figure to sustain a libel claim regarding a 'docudrama,' the use of dramatic license, including composite characters and telescoped events, does not constitute actual malice so long as the alterations do not materially distort the underlying events or increase the defamatory impact of the source material upon which the creators reasonably relied.


Facts:

  • Plaintiff Ray Davis was the Commander of the United States Military Group in Chile during the 1973 coup.
  • During the coup, Charles Horman, an American citizen residing in Chile, disappeared and was subsequently executed by the Chilean military.
  • Thomas Hauser authored a non-fiction book, 'The Execution of Charles Horman,' detailing the Horman family's search for Charles and their belief that U.S. officials, including Davis, were complicit in his death.
  • Defendants, including director Costa-Gavras, produced the film 'Missing' based on Hauser's book.
  • The film opens with a prologue stating it is 'based on a true story' and that some names have been changed.
  • In the film, Davis is not named but is represented by a fictional composite character named 'Ray Tower,' who symbolizes the American military and political presence in Chile.
  • The filmmakers relied on Hauser's book and interviews with the Horman family, who affirmed the book's accuracy, but the filmmakers did not consult with Davis before releasing the film.
  • The film portrays the Horman family's perspective that U.S. officials knew about or approved of Charles Horman's execution.

Procedural Posture:

  • Ray E. Davis filed a libel suit against Costa-Gavras and other defendants in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
  • Defendants moved for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint.
  • The court conducted an oral evidentiary hearing under Rule 43(e) to allow the plaintiff to present any clear and convincing evidence of actual malice.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a filmmaker's use of dramatic license, such as creating composite characters and fictionalized scenes based on a non-fiction book, provide clear and convincing evidence of 'actual malice' sufficient for a public figure's libel claim to survive a motion for summary judgment?


Opinions:

Majority - Milton Pollack

No. The use of dramatic license in a docudrama does not constitute actual malice where the filmmakers reasonably relied on source material and the fictionalizations do not materially distort the fundamental story. To survive summary judgment, a public figure plaintiff must provide clear and convincing evidence that the defendant published a statement 'with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.' Reckless disregard requires showing the defendant 'in fact entertained serious doubts as to the truth of his publication.' Here, the filmmakers' reliance on Hauser's book, which had been published for years without legal challenge and was affirmed by the subjects, was reasonable. A mere failure to investigate further or consult with the plaintiff is insufficient to establish malice. The film is a 'docudrama,' an art form that permissibly uses composite characters and telescopes events. Such creative choices are not evidence of actual malice so long as they do not increase the defamatory impact or alter the substantive content of the source material.



Analysis:

This decision provides significant First Amendment protection to creators of 'docudramas' and other works based on historical events. It solidifies the principle that the 'actual malice' standard requires more than proving factual inaccuracies or the use of artistic license. The ruling makes it substantially more difficult for public figures to succeed in libel suits against such creative works, as they must prove the creator had serious, subjective doubts about the truth of their source material, not just that they failed to be perfectly accurate. This case affirms that as long as the essence of the source material is portrayed without material distortion, creative interpretations of reality are constitutionally protected.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query Davis v. Costa-Gavras (1987) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for Davis v. Costa-Gavras